St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-12-28
Judge Wilkin DisSolves the
Injunction Against the Up
Town Bridge Builders,
And Mr.. Stroebel May Now Go
On With the Work Ae-
eording to Plans.
The Council Endorsed and the
Taxpayers Union Slightly
Knocked Out.
Decisions in the Supreme
Court--The Thresher Com
pany's Affairs.

At last the uup-town bridge question
has been decided, and Judge Wilkin
yesterday morning filed long decision
dissolving the temporary injunction
against Contractor c. l.. StrOebel and
he city. The contract was awarded at
a figure, to Mr.. StrOebel, consider
ably over the bid of the Morse Bridge
company. The Taxpayers association
at once set up hullabaloo that the city
council had not acted in the interest of
the taXpaying portion of the cIty's pOpu-
lace. because it had not awarded the
contract to the lowest bidder. Comp
trOller John Roche, with very san
guine note, informed Mr.. StrOebel that
he needn't begin work and put
himself to any expenses in
attempting to perform his part of the
contract. Aid. Hamm. chairman of the
committee Of the council, came forward
with a lengthy report juStifying the
award of the contract. Then the Tax
PAYERS association petitiOned the court
to restrain the city and the contractors
from going ahead with the work. Now
Judge Wilkin decides that the city had
the right and the power to award the
contract to StrOebel. since the plans and
specifications submitted in advertising
for bids gave the bidder considerable
latitude. and allowed hin to use some
discretion as to what kind Of a bridge
he would bid for to construct. 1t is
big legal victory for the city, and work
upon the bridge can now be proceeded
with unless the Taxpayers association
deems it wise to appeal the case, thing
hardly probable. Following is the text
of Judge Wilkins decision.
THE DECISION.
1t would seem from the proofs before
me that neither the Stroebel bid, nor that
of the Morse Bridge company, is III
literal accordance with the Speciiica-
tons prepared by the city engineer. 1t
appears, also. that the plans accompany
ing the specifications are not full and
complete, but one what is called 'Out-
line plans, not embracing all the min
utiR of the structure" and the Specifi-
cations themselves provide that the de-
sign of the bridge is in some respects
LETT to the contractor. | gather also
from the affidavitS in the case that this
is the usual course in proceedings of
this kind. 1t is, perhaps, wise and
necessary that such course should be
pursued in order that the city may get
the full benefit of competitive bidding.
give rise to just such difficulties as have
arisen in the present case. The city
charter provides that contracts shall
be let to the lowest responsible bidder"
But 1t is evident that, in the absence of
full and complete plans embracing all
the minutiP of structure. and when
some latitude as to design is left TO the
contractor, that it cannot always be as
certained who is the lowest responsible
bidder by merely considering the
amount of money stated in the respect
1--WE bids. Other elements must neces-
sarily be considered in the determine
ton of that question. The lowest bid
der in dollars and cents may furnish
much less valuable structure and one
far less adapted to the attainment of
the purposes for which it is intended
than is contemplated and provided for
by bidder nOminally higher. If, in
deed. the plans and specifications were
perfect. covering but one design, and
completely embracing in form. dimen-
sion, construct on and detail fixed and
definite structure, to be exactly copied,
as one copies picture, then, of course,
the bidder who named the lowest
amount in money would be the lowest
responsible bidder. In such case
there could be no room for controversy.
structiOn of the bridge for which these
bids were made, provided that ''the
common council of the city of st. Paul
shall have the supervision of the con-
struction of said bridge" which neces-
sarily implies the right to contract
for such construction. As preparatory
to the exercise OF that right they have
authorized and
APPROVED OF CERTAIN PLANS
and specifications. which, as already
stated, are not precise and definite in all
respects, but are probably as nearly so
as is practicable. In such case there
must necessarily be something left to
the discreet and Judgment of the body
which has the supervision and control
of the work. and until it clearly appears
that there has been an abuse of that
discretion OF an unwarrantable or fraud
ulent exercise of the authority with
which they are invested, there is no
ground for the interference of tie
courts. There have been presented in
this matter number of affidavitS made
by engineers Skillful and eminent in
their profession. Those presented on
the par: of the defendant point out GER
tain defects in the bid of the Morse
Bridge company which are claimed to
be material. and they represent that the
bid of William StrOObel, although nOml-
nally higher than that of the Morse
Bridge company, is in reality the most
economical and will furnish more val
liable structure and one more advan-
tageOus to the public than the one pro-
vided for in the other bid. The atfida-
Wits on the part of the plaintiff, on the
other hand. represent that the bridge
contemplated by the bid of the Morse
Bridge company will be ully as good. If
hot better, than the StrOebel bridge,
while costing much less. In this COLI
1lict of professional opinion. and in the
absence of any charge of fraud, it can
hardly be claimed that it is proper for
the court to interfere with the exercise
of the Judgment of the common conn
Gil. 1t is claimed upon the part of the
plaintiff that the proposed contract is
in effect an appropriation to the amount
of the contract price and that, therefore,
a tWo-thirlS vote of the common council
is required under the provisions of the
city charter. This point is presented
with much force by the learned counsel
for the plaintiff, but upon careful con-
SideratiOn | think the position is not
tenable. The legislature, by the act of
last winter, authorized the common
council by 4 majority vote to issue bonds
20 the amount of S500,009, or so much
thereOf as may be necessary for the pur-
pose of constructing a bridge. By the
same act the common council is to have
the supervision of the construction of
the bridge. and consequently have the
right to contract for the accomplishment
of. that purpose. | think the better
opinion is that within the limit fixed by
the Legislature the common council
have the right to contract as in other
cases. 1t follows that the injunction
caunot be maintained.
WEsTCOTT WILKIN, District Judge.